Lady avoids jail for voting lifeless mom’s poll in Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — A decide in Phoenix on Friday sentenced a woman o two years of felony probation, fines and neighborhood service for voting her dead mom’s poll in Arizona within the 2020 basic election.

But the judge rejected a prosecutor’s request that she serve at the very least 30 days in jail because she lied to investigators and demanded that they maintain these committing voter fraud accountable.

The case against Tracey Kay McKee, 64, is one among just a handful of voter fraud cases from Arizona’s 2020 election which have led to prices, despite widespread perception among many supporters of former President Donald Trump that there was widespread voter fraud that led to his loss in Arizona and other battleground states.

McKee, who was from Phoenix suburb of Scottsdale however now lives in California, sobbed as she apologized to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret LaBianca before the judge handed down her sentence. McKee stated that she was grieving over the lack of her mother and had no intent to affect the outcome of the election.

“Your Honor, I wish to apologize,” McKee informed LaBianca. “I don’t want to make the excuse for my conduct. What I did was fallacious and I’m prepared to just accept the results handed down by the court docket.”

Both McKee and her mother, Mary Arendt, had been registered Republicans, though she was not requested if she voted for Trump. Arendt died on Oct. 5, 2020, two days before early ballots have been mailed to voters.

Assistant Legal professional Normal Todd Lawson performed a tape of McKee being interviewed by an investigator along with his office where she mentioned there was rampant voter fraud and denied that she had signed and returned her mother’s ballot.

“The one option to forestall voter fraud is to bodily go in and punch a ballot,” McKee instructed the investigator. “I mean, voter fraud is going to be prevalent as long as there’s mail-in voting, for sure. I imply, there’s no approach to ensure a good election.

“And I don’t consider that this was a fair election,” she continued. “I do consider there was plenty of voter fraud.”

Tom Henze, McKee’s attorney, pointed to dozens of cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Arizona over the previous decade, many for related violations of voting another person’s poll, and said nobody got jail time in these cases. He mentioned agreeing with Lawson that McKee should do 30 days jail time would elevate constitutional issues of fairness.

“Merely acknowledged, over an extended time period, in voluminous circumstances, 67 instances, nobody in this state for related instances, in related context ... no person acquired jail time,” Henze stated. “The courtroom didn’t impose jail time at all.”

However Lawson said jail time was important as a result of the type of case has changed. Whereas in years past, most cases involved folks voting in two states because they both lived in or had property in each states, in the 2020 election folks had purchased into Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud.

“What we’re hearing is voter fraud is out there,” Lawson informed the judge. “And essentially what we’re seeing right here is someone who says ‘Effectively, I’m going to commit voter fraud because it’s an enormous problem and I’m just going to slip in below the radar. And I’m going to do it because everyone else is doing it and I can get away with it.’

“I don’t subscribe to that in any respect,” he said. “And I think the attitude you hear within the interview is the angle that differentiates this case from the opposite instances.”

LaBianca stated that whereas she agreed with Lawson, ordering jail time would give McKee what she advised the investigator what she wished: going after people who committed voter fraud.

“And if there were proof that this crime was on the rise, and that heightened deterrence may be referred to as for, the court would possibly order jail time,” LaBianca stated. “But the report here doesn't show that this crime is on the rise.

“And abhorrent as it could be for somebody like the defendant to assault the legitimacy of our free elections with none proof, except your personal fraud, such statements usually are not unlawful as far as I do know,” the choose continued.